


Celebrating Dr. John Watson

by astronbookfilms (galaxyture)



Category: Sherlock Holmes & Related Fandoms, Sherlock Holmes (1984 TV)
Genre: Character Study, Gen, Meta, Nonfiction
Language: English
Status: In-Progress
Published: 2017-09-14
Updated: 2018-04-10
Packaged: 2018-12-27 19:52:37
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 11
Words: 6,466
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/12088191
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/galaxyture/pseuds/astronbookfilms
Summary: These essays focus on the character of Dr. John Watson. Several chapters are exclusive about canon Dr. John Watson and David Burke's and Edward Hardwicke's portrayals on the Granada (Jeremy Brett) Holmes series. The rest of the chapters examine Dr. John Watson in multiple adaptations.





	1. Chapter 1

These essays celebrate and analyze the character of Dr. John Watson with a focus on David Burke's and Edward Hardwicke's portrayals on the Granada Holmes series. They were originally posted on my Tumblr astronbookfilms.

Chapter 1: Introduction; Chapter 2: Celebrating Dr. John Watson; Chapter 3: Two Watson: A Miracle; Chapter 4: At Most One City Watson; Chapter 5: Which Watson Do You Picture When Reading/Writing Granada Holmes Fanfiction?; Chapter 6: The Importance of Dr. John Watson; Chapter 7: What if David Burke had not Left Granada Holmes?; Chapter 8: A Kinder Heart; Chapter 9: Dr. John Watson: A Hero for People Who Can Pass But Feel Different; Chapter 10: Casting Dr. John Watson; Chapter 11: Dr. John Watson as a Caretaker: Granada Holmes and ACD Canon ;


	2. Celebrating Dr. John Watson

A huge factor in my enjoyment of a Sherlock Holmes adaptation is whether Dr. John Watson is shown as a competent intelligent man. Sherlock Holmes is a brilliant man who has some medical knowledge. I could never understand why he would find Watson useful to his investigations if Watson was a buffoonish idiot. Nor does it make sense to me that the Sherlock Holmes we see would be interested in a close companion who is unintelligent. One of Granada Holmes many successes was for Watson to be shown as a competent doctor and intelligent man who earns Holmes’ respect.

It is impossible to talk about Dr. John Watson on Granada Holmes without acknowledging the two actors who portray him. Both actors are excellent and from all reports Edward Hardwicke tried to be as respectful as possible to David Burke’s portrayal of Watson. However, David Burke and Edward Hardwicke are two different people and it was inevitable that their portrayals and how they played off Jeremy Brett would have some differences. Within the story this change can be explained by the fact that Holmes has seen how affected Watson was by his “death” and Watson realized just how much Holmes meant to him when he thought Holmes was dead. 

David Burke portrays a wonderfully competent doctor and with some delightful sassiness. The teasing is a wonderful callback to the books. On-screen we can see that there is fondness (and even pride) in the teasing although it might come off as a bit mean to people who are not familiar with British humor or that style of showing affection. 

With Edward Hardwicke as Watson we saw an even more competent Watson. According to reports both David Burke and Edward Hardwicke pushed for Watson to not disappear into his costume and Jeremy Brett was quite happy to let Watson have more of the dialog. We saw the fruition of that more during the Hardwicke episodes. At the end of “The Empty House” Holmes responds to Watson’s deduction about Moran by smiling and saying that he thinks Watson has hit upon the truth. Holmes is still better at deductions and connections than Watson, the other characters, and the audience, but Watson’s importance in helping Holmes solve his cases is established. 

To adjust a Lord of the Rings quote, “Holmes would never have gone so far without his Watson.” Holmes may be a hero, but he has significant flaws and Watson is critical to balancing him and helping him overcome his flaws. Logic and deduction without humanity can be dangerous. Watson provides humanity and in spending time with Watson we see Holmes humanized. As Jeremy Brett said Holmes needs Watson.  
During the Hardwicke era Watson’s sassiness lessened and was replaced by a comfortable usually unstated affection. The teasing is there, but it is in gentler form. Watson and Holmes have a comfort between them that is of life partners (whether you see that partnership as romantic and/or sexual or not). 

Unlike in canon Watson remains unmarried throughout the series, but we get glimpses into his life and interactions with people besides Holmes.  There are frequent references to Watson knowing people better than Holmes or behavior from Watson that shows it. One good example is “The Man with the Twisted Lip”. Watson is his own person.

Watson plays a rare role in that at times he plays the role of the audience, but he also is the one writing (controlling) the stories. Within the canon of Granada Holmes as within the canon of the books, it is his perspective that we see. He is the one who ‘lives and tells the story’. To be both the writer and the audience within the canon (and even at times the ‘real life audience’) is an amazing amount of power to give a character. 

Edward Hardwicke died in 2011. David Burke is 82 years old. It is said that film is forever and although that may not literally be true, their wonderful portrays of Watson will live on.


	3. Two Watsons: A Miracle

David Burke was a brilliant Dr. John Watson. His Watson is largely the Watson we see in ACD canon. He is competent and sassy. In his own way he challenges Holmes and their friendship makes Holmes a better person. He has a delightful sassiness. Burke fought for Watson not to disappear into his costume. His Watson had wonderful chemistry with Jeremy Brett’s Holmes.

David Burke clearly loved playing Watson, but he also loved his family and accepted an opportunity to work with his wife and have his son with them. He chose to leave Granada Holmes and recommended Edward Hardwicke as his replacement.

Recasting the actor who played Dr. Watson could easily have meant disaster for Granada Holmes. Jeremy Brett has acknowledged he had concerns about continuing the stories with a different actor playing Watson. Brett would have to find chemistry with a different actor and chemistry is something even the most brilliant actors can’t always create on demand. Viewers, especially fans, bond with an actor playing a character and some would be expected to not make the transition to another actor as Dr. John Watson.

Then, as Jeremy Brett, later said, “This [Edward Hardwicke] miracle occurred”. (SOURCE)  Hardwicke was determined to respect Burke’s Dr. Watson to the point of worrying about the height difference between him and Burke. Yet no matter how much Hardwicke tried to channel Burke’s performance, he is a different person and completely recreating Burke’s Watson was impossible. Luckily, the narrative can explain the slight changes because Holmes and Watson have been separated and Watson believed that Holmes was dead only to have him reappear alive and well.   
Brett and Hardwicke found their chemistry. They became close friends and that friendship infused their portrayals of two men who grew closer over the course of their relationship (however one interprets it). We see a more obvious closeness between Holmes and Watson during the Hardwicke episodes. Although Holmes will always be better at deductions he no longer serves as an obvious mentor as Watson has already learned much from Holmes and is smart enough not to need things constantly reexplained to him.

The writing and Jeremy Brett’s portrayals of Holmes also play a part in how we view Dr. John Watson. It took a few episodes for the writers to really become comfortable with their take on the stories. Jeremy Brett, who is very different from Holmes in real life, took time to become comfortable playing Holmes. It was primarily David Burke who had to contend with these challenges.

Hardwicke had the advantage that by the time he played Dr. Watson Brett was more comfortable in his role. He was also in significantly more episodes. Conversely, during later episodes Hardwicke had to contend with the writers having used up most of the best stories and Jeremy Brett’s worsening physical and mental health. 

Some fans have strong opinions about whether David Burke or Edward Hardwicke was the best Dr. John Watson. I think both actors did an excellent job in showing us a competent and interesting Dr. John Watson who is a true partner to Sherlock Holmes. The fact that the show not only survived, but prospered with a change in the actor playing Watson is a tribute to Burke, Hardwicke, Brett, and the writers.


	4. At Most One City Watson

In rereading my post on The Second Stain and the response from tremendousdetectivetheorist (on Tumblr) I realized that I was making an assumption about people’s perception of Dr. John Watson on Granada Holmes.   

Due to Doyle’s lack of interest in consistency and getting the details right there have been debates over how many wives Watson actually had, but we know he had at least two wives (1). 

Many people are fascinated by the asexually or even unshown sexuality in a male character. (I was raised Catholic and I have heard a couple of priests rant in frustration about how that is the one characteristic of the priesthood that most people focus on.) Considering the time period and audience of The Strand clearly explicit sex would not be shown in the stories, but the real possibility that Holmes isn’t having off-page sex is fascinating and/or off-putting to many people. 

A man being married- especially in Victorian England- does not automatically mean he is not asexual nor does an attraction to women necessary mean that a man is heterosexual. Men were expected to marry and part of Watson’s character is to be more conventional than Holmes. In many cases Holmes’ own non-conformity to societal standards is shown in the contrast between him and Watson. This being said most people assume that married people are not asexual and in the majority of cases that is true. 

Watson as a ‘ladies man’ is played up in many adaptations. It is one of the characteristics of Watson that is well enough known in popular culture that even non-fans are aware of it. One of the more over-the-top examples is “The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes”.  Maybe the tendency is to contrast him against Holmes and to accentuate Holmes’ differences from most men? Maybe at times it is a conscious or subconscious effort to no-homo the relationship between Holmes and Watson? Maybe it is because many writers- especially male writers- have an affinity for womanizing male characters. Certainly in canon Watson presents himself as having an attraction to women and presumably has sex with his wives. 

Granada Holmes really toned it down. They chose not to have Watson marry Mary Morstan because they felt that the dynamic between Holmes and Watson did not work if Watson had a wife (summary of Michael Cox’s comments). Brett commented that Holmes would have gotten high every night if Watson had left Holmes to get married (2).

The flirtations between Watson and Mary Morstan are shown. Watson frequently comments positively on a woman’s attractiveness or other attributes that would make her a desirable partner. I’ve always seen this as a way to acknowledge canon Watson’s marriages and interest in women without compromising the dynamic between Holmes and Watson. 

Especially in earlier episodes, Brett put a lot of effort into making sure that the show stayed close to ACD canon. The Baker Street File is an testament to care that was taken to not stray too far from Doyle. With many people in the production being Sherlock Holmes fans they would also have been subconsciously or even consciously influenced by adaptations that aired before Granada Holmes. 

Holmes tends to react negatively to Watson’s comments, but by the end of an episode there is no real dangerous of it seriously damaging their relationship (however one interprets that relationship). Not surprisingly Holmes’ most serious reaction is in The Sign of Four. For this reason I have trouble seeing Granada Holmes’ Watson as gay although I can see him as having an attraction to both men and women. 

This view of Dr. Watson plays into why I considered Holmes’ “the fair sex is your department” line to be about sexuality. 

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> 1\. Within ACD canon Watson is the one telling the stories. He admits to changing details to obscure the ‘real life’ events. One can make the argument that the inconsistencies in terms of his wives are because he is making up or at least highly adjusting the reality of his marriages. This opens up a can of worms since it can be used to question the validity of anything in canon, but since the framing of the stories is an unreliable narrator it does leave room for questioning. 
> 
> 2\. Source: Bending the Willow (Similar comments on the subject of Watson remaining unmarried have appeared in other source, but I don’t have the citations handy.)
> 
> 3\. The title of this post is a play on the “three continents Watson” view of Watson.


	5. Which Watson do you picture when reading/writing Granada Holmes fanfic?

If you read or write Granada Holmes fanfic or picture Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes when reading canon based fanfic which Watson do you picture? Is it always David Burke’s Watson or Edward Hardwicke’s Watson? Does it depend on the fanfic? 

When I wrote Waking Up Watson and After the Adventures of the Wooden Green Leg, I pictured Edward Hardwicke as Watson. I had a new fanfic idea and realized that I was picturing David Burke’s Watson. Once I realized I was picturing David Burke’s Watson it affected how I wrote the fanfic. 

My ‘fanfic for a meta’ takes place shortly after “The Devil’s Foot” which is one of the Edward Hardwicke episodes so it makes sense that I pictured Edward Hardwicke as Watson. Waking Up Holmes is inspired by The Six Napoleons which is also an Edward Hardwicke episode so perhaps that is the reason I pictured Edward Hardwicke. With AAGWL and the current fanfic I don’t know why I pictured Edward Hardwicke for one and David Burke for the other one.


	6. The Importance of Dr. John Watson

As a teenager I identified with Sherlock Holmes. I was a tomboy, but although I loved sports, I thought life would be much better if humans focused on logic instead of emotion. Like Holmes, I admired Dr. John Watson because I didn’t feel I was good as good at the ‘human side’ as I was at the ‘intellectual, logical, deductive reasoning side’. 

The older I get the more I realize that the human side really matters. One learns that family members and friends won’t live forever. Having friends who came from countries torn by civil wars I learned about death early, but the older I get the more I am impacted by it. One realizes that one day you will die. One realizes the importance of love, loyalty, and true friendship. One realizes the importance of retaining your humanity. I am selfish enough to hope that when I die- and I hope it is not for decades- there will be people who remember me fondly. As an adult I admire Dr. John Watson even more.

One of Granada Holmes’ many strengths was to showcase John Watson as a man who was as strong and worthy as Holmes, but with different strengths. 

So raise a glass (water, wine, whatever) to Dr. John Watson.


	7. What if David Burke Hadn't Left Granada Holmes?

Edward Hardwicke tried to make the transition from David Burke to himself as Watson as smooth as possible, but they are different people and Hardwicke no doubt made different choices than Burke would have made if he had continued to play Watson.

So let’s play “What if David Burke had continued playing Watson?”

Granada Holmes is about the cases. The one exception is “The Empty House” and part of why it is an exception is to introduce the audience to Edward Hardwicke as Watson. (The canon story has “character stuff”, but I do think that real life considerations played into the adaptation.) If David Burke was still Watson this real life reason would not have existed. 

Holmes returns, dresses as a book seller, and surprises David Burke Watson. Would Watson have been the exact same character we saw in “The Reichenbach Falls”? I would argue that events should have changed him. He cared deeply about Holmes and was sure that Holmes had died. We know that his life with Holmes had given him an identity and purpose after his military career was suddenly ended by injury. To have Holmes die- and especially to die alone except for Moriarty- must have hurt Watson. Holmes’ note was his most treasured possession. He would most likely have played a “what if game” as I am doing in this post.

Watson states that there is not a corner of London that does not remind him of Holmes. The happy and despite war experience innocence in some ways of David Burke’s Watson should not have been left unscathed. For him to be the exact same Watson would have stretched credibility to the breaking point. There are certain traumatic events that must change a person.

I do think that more of the teasing and Watson’s sassiness would have continued if Burke had been playing Watson. Had Burke continued I think we would have seen more than of that style of instruction on the art of deduction that largely disappeared once Hardwicke took on the role.  
As time went on Burke would have had to content with some really awful episodes. There are a few duds in Adventures, but nothing that rivals The Last Vampyre. No actor no matter how talented was going to save that disaster. 

Burke would also have had to content with Brett’s physical and mental health problems. Those problems affected Brett’s ability to play Holmes and how he treated those around him. Brett said that he and Hardwicke were best friends off as well as on-screen and yet we know that Brett’s mental health negatively impacted their friendship and working relationship. Bending the Willow talks about how Hardwicke supported Brett and was able to separate Brett’s illness from “the real Jeremy Brett”. I like to think that Burke would have been equally supportive, but he could not have cured Brett. He could not have prevented the problems later episodes have due to Brett’s health.

I have been rewatching Adventures and have a few meta ideas about the episodes. When I first watched the show I loved David Burke and approached The Empty House with trepidation, but Hardwicke’s Watson grew on me. There is a kindness and comfort to him that I like and really feels like “Watson”. At the same time I never stopped missing the teasing and Watson’s sassiness we saw between Brett’s Holmes and Burke’s Watson. I loved the energy of Burke’s Watson that was toned down in Hardwicke’s Watson. (I don’t mean action sequences, but a general energy.) 

In would be fun if we could really see a “What if…” and compare the version of Granada Holmes we have and one where Burke played Watson for the whole run. But I am convinced for both narrative and real life reasons that either way the Watson we see in The Cardboard Box would not be the Watson we saw in Adventures.

While we are playing with imaginary versions of Granada Holmes I would like a version where Jeremy Brett is physically and mentally healthy throughout a full run of Granada Holmes and they adapted all the stories.


	8. A Kinder Heart

“But you have a kinder heart,” Sherlock Holmes tells Watson in “The Empty House” to explain why he trusted Mycroft with the secret that he was still alive, but not Watson.

To many a military doctor seems to be a contradiction in terms. In popular culture a soldier is associated with stereotypical machismo, violence, and divorcing ones’ self from the softer emotions. (This is different than the reality experienced by many soldiers in real life.) Conversely, doctors may not always be nice and polite, but their job is to save people and heal them. In some ways Sherlock Holmes is more our image of a doctor than Dr. John Watson. The TV show _House_ was in many ways a Sherlock Holmes AU with Holmes as a doctor.

On Granada Holmes Dr. John Watson’s military career has ended and it rarely emphasized. He is generally capable of taking care of himself and at times serves as an unofficial bodyguard for Sherlock Holmes. He is perfectly willing to ‘take a life’ of a criminal if he thinks there is no other choice. He loves Holmes referring to him as a “dangerous ruffian” (1). However, we primarily see him in his “doctor side” caretaker role. 

Studies have shown that most people in today’s society picture a man when asked to imagine a doctor and it would have been even more true in the Victorian Era when the stories take place. The medical profession is considered properly masculine, but it is a different kind of masculinity than is associated with soldiers. It is a masculinity that still allows for the demonstration of compassion. It is a masculinity that is not threatened by having a “kinder heart”. 

Watson is the one who reminds Holmes to invite a witness to sit down. He is the one who is gentle with those who are traumatized. He is the one who easily sympathizes with those in distress. (Sometimes it blinds him to their dishonesty.) He is the one who even in later episodes still shows disapproval when Holmes is rude (unless it is to a criminal who disgusts Watson). He treats mental illness as an illness rather than a moral failing. His manner towards Phelps in “The Naval Treaty” is one of my favorite early Dr. Watson moments.

Both Holmes and Watson provide each other with what they are missing in life. Watson misses the drama of his life in the military. He enjoys bringing criminals to justice and helping not only those with medical problems, but those who have been wronged. 

It is obvious what Watson provides Holmes. Watson is a friend to Holmes who cares about him despite Holmes’ differentness and at times lack of respect for the social niceties. He reminds Holmes to eat, rest, and take care of himself. He tries to discourage Holmes from using drugs while accepting that Holmes is ultimately the one who must make the choice. He admires Holmes and lets Holmes know it without fawning over him. He is also capable of letting Holmes’ know when Holmes is being impossible and that Watson has had enough. 

I wonder how much of how Granada Holmes’ Watson is viewed is based on David Burke’s and Edward Hardwicke’s physical appearances. They both have ‘manly man’ looks which might make it easier for viewers especially more conservative ones to be comfortable with Watson’s caretaker tendencies. Watson is not "a stereotypical woman" (2), but he is a man who is not afraid to cry nor is he a man who is afraid to take on a caretaker role. For a man to allow himself to take on any role traditionally associated with women even if he is acceptably masculine in other ways takes bravery and it is perhaps ironically in his caretaker role that we most see "the bravery of a soldier".

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> 1\. Edward Hardwicke dropping his gun during an outtake of that scene is one of my all-time favorite bloopers. (source: http://granada-brett-crumbs.tumblr.com/post/160452289331/outtake-from-the-disappearance-of-lady-frances)
> 
> 2\. To my knowledge the first public instance of someone pointing this out in terms of ACD canon is "Watson was a Woman" by Rex Stout in 1941. (source: http://johnhwatsonsociety.com/march-1st-watson-woman)


	9. Dr. John Watson: A Hero for People Who Can Pass But Feel Different

**Summary for the Chapter:**

> This chapter is about the appeal of Dr. John Watson and specifically Dr. John Watson on Granada Holmes to those who are successful in adopting many of the trappings of conventionality, but still crave unconventionality.

The character of Dr. John Watson (or Dr. Joan Watson in the case of Elementary) varies radically between adaptations. In the vast majority of adaptations he serves as Sherlock Holmes’ friend, associate, and biographer (blogger in the case of BBC Sherlock). He is a more conventional man and that conventionality emphasizes  Sherlock Holmes’ uniqueness. Of course, any person who willingly partners with Sherlock Holmes on his adventures is not going to be a completely conventional person. The degree of his conventionality and his personal and professional connection to Sherlock Holmes varies radically between adaptations. 

Granada Holmes presents us with a Dr. John Watson who has a very noticeable non-conventional side. In contrast to canon and many adaptations he does not marry instead choosing to remain a bachelor living with Sherlock Holmes. Unlike Holmes he comments on women’s attractiveness and watches Mary Morstan with the look of someone imagining “what if”, but he knows himself well enough to know that the domestic life with a wife and children is not what he craves. 

It may seem like a minor thing to those of us who live in societies in which not marrying is reasonably common if not always accepted or only relevant if you are discussing Holmes/Watson, but in Victorian England his living arrangement was extremely unconventional.  Even if their relationship was 100% platonic they would have been at risk from false accusations as homosexual activity between men was outlawed.  If Granada Holmes’  Watson is writing the stories as anything like ACD canon it is probable that Holmes’ stated suspicion of feelings particularly romantic or sexual feelings combined with people not wanting to suspect “heroes” of being mlm would have protected them, but that does not erase the fact their living arrangement was unconventional.  

To state the obvious a truly conventional person would not be happy sending much of their time helping Holmes solve his sometimes gruesome cases. Nor would a conventional person put up with Holmes’ experiments.  As fans we may enjoy watching Sherlock Holmes throw paper around, but to share rooms with a man who does that would be annoying.  A truly conventional person would not be willing to commit crimes in order to solve crimes. He would have lost it the hundredth time Holmes found an unconventional way to wake him up or interrupted his attempts to actually eat something.  A truly conventional person would have not only suggested leaving things to the police, but actually insisted they do so and walked away.

Watson may get frustrated by Holmes’ non-conventional methods, but he goes along with them. He ultimately enjoys the excitement of the chase. One of my favorite episode arcs for Watson is in “The Boscombe Valley Mystery” where he fights against coming around to Holmes’ way of thinking, but ultimately has to agree that Holmes is right and that the simple explanation is wrong. 

A truly conventional person would not have relished the fake bet to find out who the duck came from in “The Blue Carbuncle”. Nor would they have forgiven Holmes so quickly in “The Empty House” and happily anticipated a new adventure with Holmes that requires his army revolver that very evening.

Many people identify strongly with Sherlock Holmes as [A Hero For People Who Feel Different](https://archiveofourown.org/works/12054579) and are willing to be unique (although his sad look at the end of The Abbey Grange suggests that Holmes craves companionship). 

Dr. John Watson on Granada Holmes is a hero for those who are successful in adopting many of the trappings of conventionality, but who still believe there is more to life and crave adventure and unconventionality.  There are more people like Watson than Holmes. Most of us find ways to pass and appear conventional in polite society while still having elements of ourselves that are not mainstream. We are not straight. The music we like isn’t popular.  We are fluent in the language of the country we live in, but culturally we are a mix of that culture and the another culture.  We have a husband and two kids, but make more money than our husband.  

I’ve always identified more with Holmes than Watson, but if I am really honest I have elements of both characters. Growing up education was everything and anything that jeopardized going to a good university or graduating from one with honors was to be avoided. My teenage rebellion was mainly being girl who loved sports, music, theatre, and film. My friends came from similar backgrounds and were the same way. Those of us who read ACD canon or watched Granada Holmes identified with Holmes, but if we really look at Watson’s character we were probably more like him in that we could “pass”, but ultimately craved unconventionality and something more in life.

Dr. John Watson often serves as the audience. This has been used to emphasize his conventionality, but in reality much of that audience is made up of people who can “pass” for conventional while still having a “bohemian” side and often find people like Holmes appealing who embrace their uniqueness and don’t try to pass.


	10. Casting John Watson

**Summary for the Chapter:**

> This essay addresses the difficulties in creating a Dr. John Watson that retains the complexity of the ACD character with examples from various adaptations.

In the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes stories Dr. John Watson is usually the narrator. Thus, fans can view the work in the context of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (ACD) as the writer or one can read them as if a real Dr. John Watson was writing the stories.

If one reads them in the context of them being written by ACD characterization can be considered to be intended and inconsistencies and other errors or confusing passages can be explained as ACD not caring. Under this reading you can also read the stories as if ACD could not publish the stories as he wished due to social mores and the law.

If one reads them in the context of Dr. John Watson being the narrator there are more possible interpretations. Does Watson minimize his own contributions and intelligence to enhance the audience’s fascination with Holmes’ brilliance? Are the problems with dates the result of him needing to obscure the identities of real people? Is the odd timeline of his marriages due to him having made them up? It does seem strange that Dr. Watson can’t remember if his first name is John or James. Or you could take it to the extreme and wonder if Dr. Watson completely invented Holmes in his loneliness after returning to London a physically and mentally broken man.

In some ways it is easier to cast a Dr. John Watson because he is less defined and there is more space for an actor to give a role his (or hers in the case of Elementary) own take. On the other hand it is very easy to- as Jeremy Brett would phrase it- bend the willow too far and come up with a detective’s assistant and biographer/blogger who bears little relationship to the heroic, loyal, and strong doctor in ACD canon.

For fans of the seemingly contradictory canon Dr. John Watson, a doctor whose military career met a violent end and finds a new lease in life in his partnership with Sherlock Holmes, new adaptations are often approached with trepidation.

There are numerous ways to get the Dr. John Watson right, but even more ways to get him wrong. To portray him only as a soldier is to miss his caring doctor side. To show him only as a doctor is to ignore his military background and ability to defend himself and others in a fight. To reduce him to just Holmes’ admiring follower is to do him an injustice as he has his own crime-fighting skills. Conversely, to ignore his partnership with Holmes is to lose the man who wrote the stories of his adventures with Sherlock Holmes in a way that at times could be described as adoring towards Holmes.

Most fans and even casual viewers have a clear view of Sherlock Holmes, but people’s view of Dr. John Watson varies. There are radical differences in how adaptations portray him. Nigel Bruce’s Watson, Jude Law’s Watson, Edward Hardwicke’s Watson, and Martin Freeman’s Watson are very different people.

It takes a skilled writer to balance the elements of Watson’s personality. It takes an honest writer to show both Watson’s caring and hardness. It takes a confident writer to not fall into easy simplistic stereotypes. As with any adaptation it requires a writer to write his or her script, let go of it, and let the actors, directors, and crew finish telling the story.

It takes a talented actor who can believably balance a variety of traits to portray Dr. John Watson. It takes an actor that can say a line and give it more meaning than the words on the script. It takes an actor who can play ‘soft’ and ‘hard’. It takes an actor who is not afraid to grieve Holmes. It takes an actor who can show frustration and fondness. It takes an actor who is not constantly worrying about whether or not something is too gay or not. (I haven’t seen an actor in a major adaptation have this problem. I have seen amateur actors have this problem.)

It takes costuming to dress Watson in a manner that befits a former military doctor who begins the stories with limited financial means. It takes hair and make-up to make him look the appropriate age and degree of health. It takes the props and set departments to add some of his touches to 221B Baker’s Street during the stories when he lives with Holmes (or if the story involves them retiring together their home in Sussex).

I like more Watsons I like than Holmes. Based on what I have seen from other fans this seems to be common. I love both David Burke’s and Edward Hardwicke’s Watson on Granada Holmes. Vitali Solomin’s Dr. John Watson is excellent. Martin Freeman did an good job portraying Dr. John Watson despite many weaknesses in the scripts.

Despite the ridiculousness of the Guy Richie (Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law) Sherlock Holmes films I can still appreciate the saner parts of Jude Law’s Watson. His expertise in medicine and background as a soldier come into play constantly. The films also do a good job of capturing a Watson who has feelings for both Mary and Holmes, but does not know how to deal with them.

In fact there are few Watsons that I dislike. He does not even appear in the film, but I hate the Dr. Watson referred to in the film Mr. Holmes. I don’t like Dr. Watson in The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. (1) I dislike the “trips over nothing” comic relief element of Nigel Bruce’s Watson, but he has other positive qualities.

Part of the enduring quality of the Sherlock Holmes stories is the partnership between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson. The variety of ways writers and actors can “bend the willow” in their portrayal of Dr. John Watson without breaking it is one of the reasons there is so much material to play with over 100 years after ACD wrote “A Study in Scarlet”.

1\. I realize that part of the characterization may have been the result of Billy Wilder wanting to come as close as he could to showing Holmes as gay and in love with Watson at a time when confirming Holmes was gay would have violated the Hays Code. Despite these extenuating circumstance and my appreciation of someone trying to sneak in some LGBTQ representation I still do not like that Watson.


	11. Dr. John Watson as a Caretaker: Granada Holmes and ACD Canon

**Summary for the Chapter:**

> This chapter examines Dr. John Watson's role as a caretaker in ACD canon and Granada Holmes and suggests reasons that some adaptations shy away from showcasing this element of Dr. John Watson's personality.

I’ve been doing a canon reread recently and it struck me once again that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, maybe despite himself, created something special when he created Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson. The comfortable enduring appeal of the stories comes in large part from the characters Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson and their relationship. 

Over the years there have been numerous adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes stories. There is something satisfying about watching the stories come to life in front of you whether in a theatre or on-screen. Adaptations have sometimes updated some of the problematic attitudes and ideas in the canon stories. Granada Holmes tried to stay close to canon with their two main deviations being a strengthening of the female characters in the stories and not having Watson marry. 

Sadly, the characterization of Dr. John Watson has often suffered in adaptations. He is left out of the stories completely. He is a buffoon. He is violent. He is weakened. He is useless. He betrays Holmes. He becomes a shadow of the remarkable character that Doyle created.

Some of the problem may be that many current societies are terrified of men having any “soft” emotions or care-taking in a way other than earning money for their family or beating up someone to protect another person. The entire concept of a compassionate, caring, loyal, non-attention seeking man seems to be something to be mocked and in need of being corrected. A man with such traits is believed to need to be shown how to “be a man” which in many people’s minds means abandoning the softer emotions and instead only showing anger or a proper “bro” style happiness. It means replacing gentleness for violence. Thankfully this seems to be changing among the younger generations, but the younger generations have not been the ones in charge of a major adaptation nor do they control the popular culture view of Dr. John Watson.

As a fan who thinks that there is evidence (although not definitive proof) that Holmes and Watson loved each other I am familiar with Rex Stout “Watson was a Woman?” paper from 1941. (1) Although the title reflects the period when it was written just as canon reflects the period that it was written the title has always bothered me with its assumption that a man in a caretaker role is no longer a man. However, regardless of whether or not you believe that Holmes and Watson had sex the fact remains that Watson often served as a caretaker for Holmes. His role was one that in 1941 and sadly still to many people in 2018 is one that should be done by a woman.

The Granada Holmes adaptation kept this element of his character. During both the Burke and Hardwicke years the audience saw Watson caring for Holmes. In “The Norwood Builder” Watson quietly, but firmly insists that a despondent Holmes needs to eat just as he did in the canon story although Burke’s Watson shows a gentle compassion that does not come through in the written word. In “The Empty House” we see Watson tuck Holmes into bed and look down fondly at him. We see Watson wrap a blanket around Holmes knowing that he gets cold. We know that Watson is the one who makes sure that the bills are paid. From “A Scandal in Bohemia” until “The Devil’s Foot” we see Watson show his concern about Holmes’ drug use. In “A Scandal in Bohemia” there is anger in Watson’s voice, but it is clear that it is driven by his admiration for Holmes’ abilities and caring about Holmes’ well-being. Holmes gleefully hands Watson his stimulant- a piece of paper promising a new case. In “The Abbey Grange” there is a silent exchange between Watson and Holmes as Lady Brackenstall talks about her husband’s addiction. Watson looks at Holmes with an almost indulgent look and Holmes looks down guiltily. In “The Musgrave Ritual” we see Watson look upset, but not comment on Holmes’ drug use. In “The Devil’s Foot” Holmes finally stops using drugs.

Certainly sometimes Watson’s care-taking means helping Holmes in a fight as he does against Moran in “The Empty House” or using his army revolver. Yet even when Watson uses violence it clear that his motivation is not to have an excuse to behave violently, but because it is necessary to protect Holmes.We see that Watson’s influence makes Holmes a better person and a better detective. In “Silver Blaze” Holmes places a gloved hand over a maid’s hand to comfort her as she describes upsetting events. This is action Holmes would not have done in “A Scandal in Bohemia”. 

On Granada Holmes Watson’s care taking tendencies do not make him less of a man. Instead they emphasize his strength.  The writers, directors David Burke, and Edward Hardwicke understood the complex characterization of Dr. John Watson. They were not afraid of canon Watson. No, Watson was not always written perfectly nor was Holmes for that matter. Luckily, overall they got it right in bring Dr. John Watson to life.

1\. I do think there is definitive proof that they cared deeply about each other.

2\. Inspired by [this post by Love-in-mind-palace on Tumblr](http://love-in-mind-palace.tumblr.com/post/160081614526/things-you-need-to-know-about-john-watson).


End file.
